Ray v. United States Postal Service
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-06546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ray v. United States Postal Service, Judge Swain denied Ray’s second default-judgment motion because service was improper and ordered proper service or an explanation.
Michael Ray’s lawsuit against the United States Postal Service was not granted a default judgment; he was ordered to complete proper service or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Ray v. United States Postal Service concerned Ray’s second request for a judgment because the Postal Service had not responded. The court had previously denied his first request because he had not shown that he served the federal government as required.
Ray provided evidence that he served a mail-room manager in Washington, D.C., and a person identified as “John Doe” in New York. The court found that this evidence did not show proper service on the Postal Service under the federal service rule.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the second motion for default judgment. She ordered Ray, by October 30, 2020, either to properly serve the Postal Service and file proof or to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve it within 90 days.
The detailed version
- Ray v. United States Postal Service · No. 1:19-cv-06546
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Michael Ray’s Second Motion for Default Judgment and supporting submissions. The court had denied Ray’s initial motion on March 13, 2020, without prejudice, because he had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which governs service in lawsuits against federal agencies.
Service issue
Rule 4(i) requires service on the United States attorney for the district where the lawsuit is brought, the Attorney General of the United States, and the federal agency by registered or certified mail. Ray submitted evidence that he served David Burroughs, identified as a “Mail Room Manager” in Washington, D.C., and a person identified as “John Doe,” listed as having refused the name of the person authorized to accept service for the Defendant in New York, New York.
The court concluded that these materials did not establish proper service on the United States Postal Service under Rule 4(i).
Ruling
The court denied Ray’s Second Motion for Default Judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court also ordered Ray, by October 30, 2020, either to properly serve the summons and complaint on the Postal Service and file proof of service, or to show cause—give a reason—why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to complete service within 90 days after filing the complaint. The order resolved Docket Entry No. 24.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.